Why Are We Deporting Iraq War Resisters?

[Wilber]

And to further answer the original question in this post about majorities' opinions.... Sometimes the government has to go against the majority to do what's right. It's the basis of our human rights act, etc. It would be hard to convince me that majority of this support is emotion based on not agreeing with the war and hating Bush. Not the facts or these cases.

Quite true. I wonder how many people advocating a plebiscite over letting deserters stay would be in favour of the same for issues like abortion and capital punishment.

[Moonbox]

It would be hard to convince me that majority of this support is emotion based on not agreeing with the war and hating Bush. Not the facts or these cases.

It's 100% emotion based. Take away the public opinion for Bush and Iraq and you have this:

-Americans enlisting in the ARMY (which serves) and receiving pay, benefits, education etc in return for enlisting.

-The same Americans then refusing to do what they signed up to do in the first place.

These soldiers are breaking their end of the contract. What is their moral opposition to war in Iraq? They don't believe in the war? They're not really being ordered to murder civilians or anything like that. There's ALWAYS civilian casualties in war and it pretty much can't be avoided. I would understand if American soldiers were being ordered to murder families and babies and whatnot, but their whole argument for going AWOL is extremely extremely weak.

You know what you're signing up for when you enlist in the Army. Past enlistees had the fortune of NOT having a conflict to serve in. Now there's a conflict. You either do what you signed up for, got paid for and promised to do or you face the consequences.

[madmax]

I see no reason why they should be allowed here.....they are just illegal immigrants of the worst kind...the kind without honour....unwilling to keep their word or abide by their contracts.

Some people can't handle the slaughter of children and poor people for a war that is morally offensive and the result of simple naked agression.

To do your time, come back and then have the conflict settle in, is mentally challenging to the best. Many people returning from combat behave quite differently and view the world in a different manner. For some, the only thing that works is to turn the brain off and get back into the action. For others it is another difficult prospect.

If you believe in contracts, then you believe in the rule of law.

The US and its coalition partners rush to Iraqi oil fields and ministrys challenges the best of intentions, good will and international relations.

The only difference between today and the 60s and 70s is that many of the recruits were drafted. However, that does overlook that many draft dodgers of that era also served time in Vietnam.

The Military is full of little tricks and rules, and catch 22 isn't just a book.

Many soldiers were lied to for their reasons to participate and enlist. They had been tricked by their government for the current administrations policy goals. Many soldiers believed they were going overseas for the security of their country, and many believed that they would be back home in months, not years.

People were recalled as well, who also believed they had received their get out of jail free cards.

The Military isn't for everyone. You can't know what is going on in this persons head. Many people join looking for a home, friends, or can't find a lifestyle that suits them in Civy clothes.

But I find it more difficult to read comments from people who have never worn a military uniform, let alone been anywhere near a combat zone or seen a war upclose and personal.

Come back and pass judgement M.Dancer after you have killed.

In the meantime, governments must follow due process and we must accept or change what choices governments make.

I personally wouldn't have want someone uncommitted covering my back or thinking of fragging me or others to get out of something that they haven't the stomach for. To much Gung Ho can get you chemical coffees.

[Alta4ever]

While you may like or dislike the way a war is being fought the war is being fought western militarys no long target civil population as was done in past wars. We have seen no carpet bombing. The militaries do their best to keep civilian death to a minimum. Unlike those the US were fighting in Iraq who targeted inocents.

All of this aside, these deserters have not lived up to a commitment they made to the people of the United States. They have used up valuable resource and the American tax payer has gotten nothing back for their investment. These poeple are cowards they refuse to do their jobs and they are too scared to face judgement for their actions. Not to mention how many of their friends in the military have been wounded or died because they let their units and friends down.

When you listen to WWII vets talk about why they signed up for additional tours of duty or made return flights over targets that seemed like sucide, they reason why they said they did it was because if they didn't someone would have to and it might have been one of their friends. This is the hire moral cause they did it not for their countries not for a cause but did the courageous thing to protect a fellow solder and for a friend.

These deserters have let their country down, they have let themselves down, but worst of all they have let their fellow solders and friends down.

Send them back to pay the piper.

[M.Dancer]

Come back and pass judgement M.Dancer after you have killed.

And you have killed?

[M.Dancer]

However, that does overlook that many draft dodgers of that era also served time in Vietnam.

The only draft dodgers that served in Vietnam were the ones who ceased dodging the draft.

Perhaps you are thinking of deserters?

[Muddy]

I look forward to those who support deserters answering this one simple question. Why do they run away to Canada instead of taking court marshall and a small sentence while thier peers go into harms way? Is it not better to make a point that your not a coward and are willing to have your day in court. At least this way you can continue being in touch with family and friends. Or is it cowardice of any retribution that makes them run ?

[waldo]

I look forward to those who support deserters answering this one simple question. Why do they run away to Canada instead of taking court marshall and a small sentence while thier peers go into harms way? Is it not better to make a point that your not a coward and are willing to have your day in court. At least this way you can continue being in touch with family and friends. Or is it cowardice of any retribution that makes them run ?

the “coward” labeling in this thread seems such a hollow reservation, particularly one emanating from the sanctuary of a discussion forum – notwithstanding keyboard warriors, of course.

if one takes the time to actually read some of the first-hand accounts of the varied war resisters, one can quickly appreciate the varied circumstances. One of the more prolific cases is a resister who refused to return for a second Iraq campaign – that he was wounded and received the American Purple Heart medal in his first Iraq campaign should damper some of the fervor for cowardice labeling so readily being thrown about in this thread. Another profile case has a resister attempting to work within the American military system – while on tour in Afghanistan, the resister learns his unit will be deployed to Iraq – the resister has fundamental differences with the lies behind the Iraq war – the resister requests conscientious objector status and is denied – the resister requests non-combatant status and is denied.

varying cases being judged collectively by some within this thread – varying cases being judged separately by the Canadian courts, in spite of a Parliamentary vote in favour of a motion to allow U.S. Iraq war resisters to remain in Canada – in spite of the will of a majority of Canadians as evidenced by this recent Angus Reid poll. Clearly, only the minority Conservative government wishes to return the American war resisters… along with a few MLW keyboard warriors.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Thats all fine... purple heart and what have you, but why should this become Canada's problem?

If they don't want to fight, then flatly refuse. They can go AWOL in their own country and hide out in the hills in Tennessee for all I care.

BTW I am an ex-soldier - 3rd RCR Petewawa, infantry, and did a tour overseas. I still see these guys as cowards.

[waldo]

and what kind of a problem does Canada actually have?

interesting - are all/any refugee claims problems?

I recall an interesting study that followed up on a significant number of Vietnam War draft dodgers in Canada - decades after the fact. Each and every person profiled was a long standing contributing member to Canadian society. Is that that the kind of problem you refer to? Is that the kind of problem Canada has in considering acceptance of Iraq war resisters - that they might actually become Canadians and contribute to society?

[M.Dancer]

.... acceptance of Iraq war resisters ?

The main differemce is that draft dodgers were principled. They didn't join..they went into exile. These ones who you call war resisters (I prefer the more accurate term, deserters) had no problem with the war when they joined...they played Lotto US Armed Forces and when there number fell on active service they bailed...if they were actually "war resisters" and not deserters, they would have never accepted the Kings Presidents Shilling and the benefits accompanied with memebership in the US armed forces.

So like most draft dodgers in Canada, who went back to theUS whe they got amnesty, send tese ones home and let them finally take their princepled stand where tey belong.

[waldo]

The main differemce is that draft dodgers were principled. They didn't join..they went into exile. These ones who you call war resisters (I prefer the more accurate term, deserters) had no problem with the war when they joined...they played Lotto US Armed Forces and when there number fell on active service they bailed...if they were actually "war resisters" and not deserters, they would have never accepted the Kings Presidents Shilling and the benefits accompanied with memebership in the US armed forces.

So like most draft dodgers in Canada, who went back to theUS whe they got amnesty, send tese ones home and let them finally take their princepled stand where tey belong.

so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better?

"[it is recommended that] the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals."

[g_bambino]

The main differemce is that draft dodgers were principled. They didn't join..they went into exile. These ones who you call war resisters (I prefer the more accurate term, deserters) had no problem with the war when they joined...they played Lotto US Armed Forces and when there number fell on active service they bailed...if they were actually "war resisters" and not deserters, they would have never accepted the Kings Presidents Shilling and the benefits accompanied with memebership in the US armed forces.

So like most draft dodgers in Canada, who went back to theUS whe they got amnesty, send tese ones home and let them finally take their princepled stand where tey belong.

Well put.

[M.Dancer]

so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better?

No not really. They aren't C.O.s

Conscientious Objectors historically are not deserters. C.Os don't willingly join the army. And when (back then) a C.O was drafted, they still served abeit in an non belegerent capacity, either as rear echelon or as a medical tech. While the looney left wing of the house who like to throw words around willy nilly regardless of meaning, they do not actually fit any accepted definition of what a conscientios objecter is ...a more accurate description would be political objecter, deserter. It has been said here before, unfortunately servicemen do not have the right to pick and choose which conflict they will be asked to serve in.

And yes,it doesn't matter whether they had 1 tour or 20. They a law breakers, oath breakers....just leike an Enron board member or Conrad Black.

Now it is so very unlikely that they would ever see active duty again, given that their honour is worthless, so the reason to stay here to avoid military service is false. They are here to avoid the repercussions of their actions, the repercussions of joining an army and the reperciussions of deserting an army. If they want to legally emigrate to Canada after they have faced the music, let them try then.

[Alexandra]

so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better?

"[it is recommended that] the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals."

This was a non-binding motion issued by Mrs. Olivia Chow. It has no effect other than as a sop to the anti-war resisters and personal interest groups Mrs. Chow/Layton is historically in sympathy with and has historically represented in her political career.

[from wikipedia]

...... "A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support....."

Not quite what Mrs. Chow intended was the snickering of her liberal counterparts over her insistence on the overly dramatic description {conscientious observer} of these hundred or so American deserters from their country's armed forces.

Not one of the stories by these so-called 'refugees' of their experiences in the branch of armed service (mainly army) they served in have been proven to the satisfaction of those investigators in Canada's Dept. of Immigration. The reason these deserters have given for coming to Canada is that they were 'promised' by the various anti-war, et al. groups, including a couple of the Vietnam war era deserters now acting as their defence lawyers, one in particular who promises these deserters, free legal defence and aid and comfort during their 'stay' in Canada.

There is nothing more than the usual motives of these anti-war, anarchist anti-everythings together with the 'paid' organizers of the anti-everythings than to garner as much attention as possible for their causes, which includes much needed publicity for Mrs. Olivia Chow's/Layton's political career.

Canada has attempted to shut the door to any 'refugees' fleeing across the borders from the U.S. -- without much success unfortunately.

`

Edited January 15, 2009 by Alexandra

[Topaz]

Not all war resisters, or what ever you want to call them can have friend in government or the military to get you out of a situation, like going to war . Who? GW Bush, Cheney, Rove or any other rich kid. There 's definitely a double standard on this topic.

[Wild Bill]

I'm always surprised by how many quote the United Nations as some kind of "world government" with power over all countries. It's not, of course. It's simply a forum where member countries can debate their interaction.

What's more, some seem to feel it has some kind of moral authority. That is flatly ridiculous! When the UN Human Rights Tribunal is headed by countries like Libya and regularly blame Israel for everything up to and including tsunamis any idea of moral authority is a joke.

Even UNICEF fell to scandal, with the fellow in charge caught with his hand in the cookie jar. All those pennies I collected every Halloween. What a sap I was!

From my POV, I wouldn't cite the UN in this argument. It hurts your side more than helps.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not all war resisters, or what ever you want to call them can have friend in government or the military to get you out of a situation, like going to war . Who? GW Bush, Cheney, Rove or any other rich kid. There 's definitely a double standard on this topic.

They are called deserters after 180 days. Has nothing to do with Bush, Cheney, or Rove.

[Muddy]

If these guys and gals called resisters are not cowards ,why do they not just do their minimal time in their own counties lock up and then walk clear and free. Muhammed Ali did that and covered himself in glory. He did not run away like a baby .He stood on principal.

What do these resisters bring to Canada is the next question. Would they take up arms for this country if it was ever threatened? Should they be allowed to join Canada`s military? If you being mugged on a street corner who do you think would come to your rescue? The resisters( since you don`t like cowards I will be kind) or a guy like Chuck U Farlie. Being an old soldier myself I know who I would like backing me up.

[waldo]

so it's a principled distinction you make - regardless of the number of tours some of these war resisters have made, regardless whether you want to acknowledge their actual histories, as it seems to work to your prejudices to label them all as "bailers". Perhaps you would prefer the term used within the actual Parliamentary motion - conscientious objectors. Better?

No not really. They aren't C.O.s

Conscientious Objectors historically are not deserters. C.Os don't willingly join the army. And when (back then) a C.O was drafted, they still served abeit in an non belegerent capacity, either as rear echelon or as a medical tech. While the looney left wing of the house who like to throw words around willy nilly regardless of meaning, they do not actually fit any accepted definition of what a conscientios objecter is ...a more accurate description would be political objecter, deserter. It has been said here before, unfortunately servicemen do not have the right to pick and choose which conflict they will be asked to serve in.

And yes,it doesn't matter whether they had 1 tour or 20. They a law breakers, oath breakers....just leike an Enron board member or Conrad Black.

Now it is so very unlikely that they would ever see active duty again, given that their honour is worthless, so the reason to stay here to avoid military service is false. They are here to avoid the repercussions of their actions, the repercussions of joining an army and the reperciussions of deserting an army. If they want to legally emigrate to Canada after they have faced the music, let them try then.

the conscientious objector term itself is full of nuance – that the Canadian military accommodates it’s active members, should they be so inclined, suggests your misunderstanding and false categorization of the American Iraq war resisters who, most certainly, fit the eligibility criteria that would allow them to be recognized as conscientious objectors – by the Canadian military.

DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

the Canadian military does not recognize it’s active members, those seeking conscientious objector status, as “law breakers”, as “oath breakers” (your terms) – and yet you would so label the American Iraq war resisters.

in the context of a most dishonorable war, the Iraq war, interesting that you would be so free, so negative, with your honour evaluations of American war resisters. In that context, particularly in that context, it’s quite apparent the American war resisters maintain their personal honor in the face of the travesty that is the Bush Iraq war.

[waldo]

This was a non-binding motion issued by Mrs. Olivia Chow.

.

.

Not quite what Mrs. Chow intended was the snickering of her liberal counterparts over her insistence on the overly dramatic description {conscientious observer} of these hundred or so American deserters from their country's armed forces.

.

.

There is nothing more than the usual motives of these anti-war, anarchist anti-everythings together with the 'paid' organizers of the anti-everythings than to garner as much attention as possible for their causes, which includes much needed publicity for Mrs. Olivia Chow's/Layton's political career.

and your point is? Are you suggesting the vote results would be different if binding? A majority of MPs expressed their agreement with the motion. Of course, the CPC sheepishly voted against it.

perhaps you could cite to support your dramatization of snickering Liberals – when I read the minutes of the Standing Committee there are 2 motions in play, one from the Hon. Jim Karygiannis (LPC) and one from the Hon. Olivia Chow (NDP). The “conscientious objector” phrase appears within each motion. Eventually a single motion comes forward and is attributed to Ms. Chow, fully supported by all committee members (other than the CPC members, of course).

anarchist anti-everythings? How silly.

[Riverwind]

In that context, particularly in that context, it’s quite apparent the American war resisters maintain their personal honor in the face of the travesty that is the Bush Iraq war.

If these deserters had any honour they would refuse to serve and accept the dishonorable discharge and/or jail time. Expecting Canada to take them in is the act of dishonourable cowards that we don't want in the country.

[bush_cheney2004]

....in the context of a most dishonorable war, the Iraq war, interesting that you would be so free, so negative, with your honour evaluations of American war resisters. In that context, particularly in that context, it’s quite apparent the American war resisters maintain their personal honor in the face of the travesty that is the Bush Iraq war.

If these American deserters may find some sense of personal honor while serving a short sentence or living their entire lives branded as cowards, that's great. As for the rest of any such comparisons to COs in Canada, it's just to satisfy the collective Canadian neurosis about the war in Iraq. The deserters are just proxies for a meaningless domestic political debate for an invasion completed long ago. Get over it.....

[waldo]

If these guys and gals called resisters are not cowards ,why do they not just do their minimal time in their own counties lock up and then walk clear and free. Muhammed Ali did that and covered himself in glory. He did not run away like a baby .He stood on principal.

What do these resisters bring to Canada is the next question. Would they take up arms for this country if it was ever threatened? Should they be allowed to join Canada`s military? If you being mugged on a street corner who do you think would come to your rescue? The resisters( since you don`t like cowards I will be kind) or a guy like Chuck U Farlie. Being an old soldier myself I know who I would like backing me up.

the American Vietnam draft dodgers have contributed significantly to Canadian society over the decades. Will your sensitivities accept that many of those labeled as draft dodgers were, in fact, active American military who left their service.

I’m not particularly troubled with your – and others – penchant for labeling the American Iraq war resisters as cowards. As I said, against the context of the most dishonorable Bush Iraq war…

[waldo]

If these American deserters may find some sense of personal honor while serving a short sentence or living their entire lives branded as cowards, that's great. As for the rest of any such comparisons to COs in Canada, it's just to satisfy the collective Canadian neurosis about the war in Iraq. The deserters are just proxies for a meaningless domestic political debate for an invasion completed long ago. Get over it.....

which presumes there actually is some collective Canadian neurosis about the war in Iraq. Most Canadians are quite comfortable recognizing the events and political leaders that ensured we had nothing to do with Iraq – in a most meaningful debate. There is nothing – nothing – needing a “get over”.